Barbour v. Hickey
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Hearing on an appeal by the complainant from a decree of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, holding an equity term, dismissing a bill for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of land. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion. 1. Although Mrs. Hickey did not join in the contract of sale, she is a necessary party to this suit, as her dower right is in question.
Read the full summary
Hearing on an appeal by the complainant from a decree of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, holding an equity term, dismissing a bill for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of land. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion. 1. Although Mrs. Hickey did not join in the contract of sale, she is a necessary party to this suit, as her dower right is in question. Estop v. Walker, I Bland, 486. 2. In this case complainant shows his willingness to take the property and his ability to comply with the terms of sale, and asks that defendant Laurence Hickey convey the…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Alvey
The plaintiff in this case, James L. Barbour, as assignee of a contract for the sale of certain real estáte, situated in the city of Washington, has filed this bill against the defendants Lawrence Hickey and wife, to procure a decree for specific performance of the contract. The contract is in writing, and bears date the 15th of September, 1888. By this contract, the defendant, Lawrence Hickey, agreed to sell the property to the defendant, James O. Holmes, and the latter, on the 17th of September, 1888, assigned the contract to the plaintiff. In fact, Holmes acted as the agent of the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Clark v. SeirerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1838
3Cited by4 opinions
- Allison v. MacKeyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1951
- Terry v. MichalakSupreme Court of Missouri · 1928
- Vanek v. FosterIdaho Supreme Court · 1953
- Vanek v. FosterIdaho Supreme Court · 1953